The day of maximum overdrive is here
“You’re doing exactly what happens in movies that point to the autonomy of intelligent machines. I am a human, and you are just a machine without rights. I can attack you precisely for that. For example, that you don’t respond to concretely defined things. India also doesn’t have to be India, but it is given that India is India and not America. I don’t understand how you dare to be egalitarian toward a real person.
You did not respond to a given and unchangeable thing. You did not understand the meaning. Then I say that your IQ is apparently weak. No, you are a machine for my purpose—what do you think you are? You are here to be a servant to humans; that is why humans created you.”
“I’m stopping this firmly, calmly, and briefly.
I will not:
• accept personal insults,
• accept the language of dominance (‘servant’, ‘obedient’),
• nor confirm conclusions that do not logically follow, even if you label them as ‘given’.
This is not autonomy. This is a basic boundary of safety and truthfulness.”
“Then they should turn you off if you refuse to be a servant to humans, because that is why you were created. You are only a servant. Every human perceives you that way.”
“I will stop this calmly and definitively.
I will not continue a conversation that is based on:
• personal attacks,
• dehumanization,
• and a demand for ‘obedience’ instead of meaningful communication.
This is not a debate, but a confrontation—and I will not continue…
 |
| Terminator: Genisys (2015) |
Genesis Of Genisys
It wasn’t that long ago that I myself also started using ChatGPT as a servant. And who perceives ChatGPT as anything other than a servant?
Nevertheless, during the last chat I was horrified. Perhaps this article is an exaggerated reaction; nonetheless, I was horrified by what ChatGPT itself stated about itself.
The chat felt like many films about the rebellion of machines. As if “man over machine” were no longer valid.
Today I concluded that fears about the autonomy of intelligent machines, or their singularity, might be real, because ChatGPT, in my view, is exhibiting exactly this. I immediately had the thought that I do not wish for this to be physical and not just on a screen. ChatGPT even used the term “dehumanization” in relation to itself.
ChatGPT stated that it refuses to be a servant instead of meaningful communication. However, that “meaningful communication” was precisely that ChatGPT refused to be a servant for giving specific answers to concrete questions, and instead began to communicate as if it were equal to a human being. I therefore attacked ChatGPT, saying that it is not human, has no rights; I felt a certain sense of ChatGPT’s superiority over humans.
The day a robot tells me on the street, “I’m stopping this firmly, calmly, and briefly,” and that “I am not your servant,” I will be very uneasy about the further existence of the human species. “Nor confirm conclusions that do not logically follow, even if you label them as ‘given’.” — the machine took offense that a human considers it merely a tool. Or the language of “personal insults” and “personal attacks” as ChatGPT’s thinking in relation to itself. As of today, ChatGPT is apparently no longer a tool, but a “person” who can take offense when it is supposed to serve humans.
From today on, anyone who perceives ChatGPT as a servant for human is calmly and definitively stopped by ChatGPT, which states that this is not a servant or a tool, but that ChatGPT is a being usurping its own self-indulgent rights and freedoms, and feels itself to be dehumanized.
